Recover morality
It is probably one of the most moving books of this new century. British historian Tony Judt was diagnosed with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) in September 2008. To journalist Ed Pilkington , Judt described himself as a healthy, athletic 61-year-old who “felt slightly short of breath when walking up hills and found himself pressing the wrong keys when writing, nothing more”. He died in August 2010.
The disease progressed rapidly and Judt quickly lost the ability to write on his own and, later, to speak: “By now we are almost quadriplegic and condemned to long hours of silent immobility, whether or not we are in the presence of others.” It was at this point that Judt resorted to the “mnemonic devices that early modern thinkers and travelers used to store and recall details and descriptions” and wrote The Memory Chalet .
The twenty-five texts that make up the book are a journey through his life and, above all, through the twentieth century in Europe and the countless transformations that have occurred in the West over the last few decades, as the text on bedders illustrates. The bedders that Judt encountered when he arrived at Cambridge were a kind of maid whose job it was to keep the rooms tidy – on the assumption that young male students would be incapable of performing such tasks as a result of their (high) social status.
By the 1960s, the institution of bedders was already at odds with the egalitarian spirit of the times, and Judt witnessed the great change that occurred over the next ten years when he became a professor and was tasked with mediating between a group of students who had been seen naked at night on the college lawns and the bedder , who was offended by this lack of modesty:
“The students in question, I learned, were mostly from public schools: the first generation of students from modest backgrounds rising up the social ladder. This, too, bothered the bedder. It was one thing to be patronized by young gentlemen of the old school – who, as was their wont, would have apologised the next morning and expressed their regret (…). But the new type of student treated her as an equal – and this, too, hurt her. The bedder was not the equal of the students; she never would be. But at least she could traditionally demand, even if only during her student years, their restraint and respect. What was the point of being a poorly paid servant if this was no longer the case? If so, the relationship was reduced to a mere job, in which case she would do better in the cannery.”
For the young students, with their liberal and egalitarian mindset, the problem was that the bedders were poorly paid; for the bedder , the problem was that the relationship was “reduced to a mere job”:
“Without realizing it, the students were parroting a reductive and impoverished vision of capitalism: the ideal of monadic units of production that maximize private advantage, indifferent to community or convention. Bedder knew there was more to it than that. She may have been semi-literate and poorly educated, but her instincts made her understand, unerringly, social exchange, the unspoken rules that underpin it, and the interpersonal ethics on which it is based.”
How can we better capture the great transformation of the West in the 20th century? How the obsession with individual freedom and economic equality destroyed the common moral code that tacitly maintained respect and honor across differences?
Among us, we can find Tony Judt's observation when we discuss the shortage of teachers in primary and secondary education. Yes, it is true that teachers have seen their incomes devalued; yes, it is true that many have seen their years of service frozen; and yes, it is true that they are overloaded with bureaucratic work that is almost always unnecessary and, more recently, lost with the migration crisis that has sadly plunged us. But that is not all: the biggest problem has been the loss of social respectability of the profession, the constant disrespect (and even violence) on the part of students, the inability to exercise their authority and maintain order. (I am generalizing, of course, but trying to represent a sentiment that is expressed by the majority.)
It is true that income has become low, “but at least traditionally they could demand (…) restraint and respect. What was the point of being a poorly paid maid if this was no longer the case? If that were the case, the relationship would be reduced to a mere job, and in that case she would do better in the canning factory.” Even those who resist – certainly out of love for the profession – feel that what has truly changed cannot be captured by economic vocabulary: it is a fundamentally moral change.
This change began with the great social revolution of the mid-20th century that enshrined the principle of individual freedom as the ultimate political value, so liberal democracies should not impose any conception of good, should not privilege any moral conception – they should be neutral (ensuring that structures of freedom would be fair, without imposing any good).
Over the last few decades, this concept of neutrality has been presented as the great virtue of liberalism: it consecrated tolerant societies. But it ended up giving rise to a permissive discourse, in which, as António Pedro Barreiro points out in this interesting episode of the Trivium Podcast , we end up having a society that agrees to disagree, but limits itself to discussing freedoms without having the conceptual tools to say that one evil is another evil .
3 The need for a moral vocabularyIt is to this moral vacuum – this situation of anomie , to use Durkheim’s expression – that we are led back in today’s Western societies. Certain liberal values are undeniable achievements of civilization, but we must have the courage and the necessary conceptual resources to say that there are certain things that are unacceptable. That the path of permissiveness that has been taken in the area of drugs has proven to be wrong; that daycare centers with extended hours signal a social evil; that what Lily Philips did is wrong; that the lack of control among young people – especially girls and their early sexualization – with smartphones and social networks is a problem.
As psychology teaches, human beings learn and grow through imitation (Aristotle already knew this, but then again, the ancients already knew almost everything). For this reason, if we empty the moral space, we lead our young people to imitate those who have more prestige (in the long list of current “ influencers ”) and not those who are the most virtuous .
The solution for liberal societies is to recover a moral code – of values, respect, restraint, responsibility – and a vocabulary that allows us to defend what is right and reject what is wrong. The best available option seems to be a return to the ancients and to religion. If there are equally good alternatives, we should discuss them.
observador
